Logo by AGUS - Contribute your own Logo!

END OF AN ERA, FRACTALFORUMS.COM IS CONTINUED ON FRACTALFORUMS.ORG

it was a great time but no longer maintainable by c.Kleinhuis contact him for any data retrieval,
thanks and see you perhaps in 10 years again

this forum will stay online for reference
News: Visit the official fractalforums.com Youtube Channel
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. January 20, 2019, 07:18:22 PM


Login with username, password and session length


The All New FractalForums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!


Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Share this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on Twitter
Author Topic: Can fractals make sense of the quantum world?  (Read 2573 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nahee_Enterprises
World Renowned
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2250


use email to contact


nahee_enterprises Nahee.Enterprises NaheeEnterprise
WWW
« on: March 31, 2009, 11:41:21 PM »

A fascinating article in the "New Scientist" talks about resolving Quantum Theory with fractals:

    http://is.gd/pFiD]http://is.gd/pFiD
or:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127011.600-can-fractals-make-sense-of-the-quantum-world.html?full=true
 
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 10:42:23 PM by Nahee_Enterprises » Logged

bib
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2070


At the borders...


100008697663777 @bib993
WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2009, 01:54:56 AM »

Excellent!

I have always liked the idea of a fractal universe. To me it is obvious. At all scales, fractal or fractal-like structures can be observed. From the high distance universe structure simulations down to elementary particles, a wide a range of fractals can describe our universe.

So why not even infinitely deeper into elementary particles opening new universes, and so on ? The quantum theory would be like a view of what's down there, but with not enough "iterations" to see the details, only providing a statistical estimation.

 evil afro

Logged

Between order and disorder reigns a delicious moment. (Paul ValÚry)
rloldershaw
Navigator
*****
Posts: 63


« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2009, 03:24:15 AM »


Hi All,

Tim Palmer's work is extremely encouraging to those who think fractal modeling of nature has been sadly neglected by the physics community.

I have spent 33 years developing a fractal model of the cosmos.

It appears that a discrete fractal model works best for the Universe, and the more classical continuous fractals abound within any particular cosmological Scale.

Have a look at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw if you are new to these ideas.

For more advanced readers, you might go straight to: http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw , for several recent papers that discuss the physics in more detail.

Yours in science,
Knecht
Logged
gamma
Safarist
******
Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2009, 09:19:44 PM »

Hi. I opened many times your web site and I seem to be unable to read it. It does not resonate with me. Objects that are fractals seem impossible to hold in hand. So far, in physics we had opportunity to hold matter and radiation as "substance" or as energy. We can understand it, comprehend it, work with it... Power of patterning physical reality sounds like a better approach, because it is self-explanatory why we find fractals at so many places. For example, DNA molecules can assemble Sierpinski gasket set by artificial manipulation. Scientists made it exciting because the gasket is assembling itself - which it does via calculating XOR operation during assembly. In other words, there is a catch why this fractal exists.

Quote
It appears that a discrete  fractal model works best for the Universe, and the more classical continuous fractals abound within any particular cosmological Scale.

Your statement sounds interesting and I wish I could understand just a little better. I wonder if you studied homeomorphisms? They are topological similarities, topological "matches". We can ask, does one structure represent some other structure in essence? DeVaney wrote all his papers about 2 homeomorphisms found in 2 equations for Julia set. If you know how to produce one Julia set that fits within definition of another set or perform such operations in general, then you can transform laws and known structures into what you want. :-))
http://math.bu.edu/people/bob/papers.html   

Of course, process of proving is pretty unpleasant. Devaney had trouble proving relation of two sets that are obvious. You would need to bring evidence from Space about fractal nature of nature itself. Its way too much. :-) I was going to make a remark on creative expression by designing objects sharing resemblance with some sets, sets of rules, principles...   
« Last Edit: April 05, 2009, 11:25:06 PM by gamma » Logged
Mihaly
Forums Newbie
*
Posts: 8


Rose Red and Leafy Green - go figure


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2014, 03:13:26 PM »

 It may be a way of enabling us to avoid some of the incalculable but it also has an appeal in the way it can describe things at several different scales.

Unfortuanately, I believe that a simplistic resort to mathematical fractal nature might be too appealing without also including some sense of understanding. In other words, I fear that an appeal to something like fractal mathematics despite its seemingly scale-invariant description isn't entirely suitable here, or at least, cannot fulfil the requirement of a complete mathematical decription - a T.O.E. (Theory of Everything) sort of idea, but if it is a scalar breaking model then definitely fractal mathematics is only a window onto it.

 In other words, I am breaking with the tradition that believes everything is only mathematics.

 I won't deny that it has an appeal, that everything might have a simplistic although recursive nature.

 But the very fact that it breaks symmetry is cause for concern.

 As Einstein says: If your theory breaks symmetry, then so much the worse for your theory"
(paraphrased)

 We have seen many successes in fractal/catastrophic maths, yet it i still tosome degree new as a mathod.

 I have no doubt it will play some role in the greater understanding we will achieve. But still I have strong doubts about some entire encapsulating theory of everything, I just can't see it. Maybe I am behind the times.

 I think we still have a long way to go. Anybody who suggests otherwise is merely playing for time.
Sincerely,
Michael Kortvelyesy.
Logged

the things we can't give away
but have no use for
hold every man back
for what they die for
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
DVD: World of Fractals Fractal DVDs Jules Ruis 0 2746 Last post October 01, 2006, 03:21:31 PM
by Jules Ruis
Real world Fractals Fractals Applied or in Nature Jules Ruis 11 5637 Last post December 30, 2009, 02:31:53 AM
by Nahee_Enterprises
Theory of Space Time with Quantum Scale Fractals Fractal News across the World Nahee_Enterprises 0 1344 Last post March 30, 2009, 04:40:53 AM
by Nahee_Enterprises
Tutorial: make a IFS fractals with Paint. IFS - Iterated Function Systems Fractal universe 1 1124 Last post August 13, 2015, 12:24:36 AM
by Chillheimer

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM
Page created in 0.11 seconds with 27 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.007s, 2q)